Age and Race Clash over Netflix's Hannibal, Starring Denzel Washington

 A historical clash erupted last month when Netflix announced that it was producing a film on Hannibal Barca, staring Denzel Washington. The skirmish is over Washington being black. So why is that an issue? For me, I am less concerned with the portrayal of Hannibal's ethnicity than I am with something else, which I will get to but let's begin the race question with context. 

Image credit: Fiction Horizon

Hannibal Barca was one of history's greatest military figures. He led the first full army over the Alps and into Roman-era Italy, which freaked everybody out, especially Rome. And for the next 20 years, Hannibal wrought havoc on the Roman republic to the point that his name struck intense fear in Roman society. He was born in Carthage, a Mediterranean Sea-side city-state in northern Africa near the site of present-day Tunis. And there is a revisionist continent that insists that African means sub-Saharan African--in another word, black. This has a tendency to insert an element of racism into Carthage/Roman conflict that wasn't there. But back to Hannibal himself. Was he black? Unlikely. As a Carthaginian, he was of Phoenician decent. These were a semitic people from the eastern Mediterranean. Their home city was Tyre. But it was Carthage that put them on the map. By 218 BC (Hannibal's time) Carthage had built enormous influence and commerce spanning from present-day Spain, across Saharan Africa into Egypt, and northward to what is now Lebanon. 

There is no question that a seafaring, colonizing people would intermix with the indigenous people they came into contact with. Indeed, DNA testing of sampled remains from Carthage itself shows this. But was Hannibal black? We will never know for certain because the fate of his remains are unknown, as he committed suicide whilst evading Romans long after Carthage fell after the Third Punic War--the final war between Rome and Carthage in which Rome burned the city and sold off surviving citizens into slavery. To be clear, Rome did not enslave people based on race. They enslaved anyone. If you weren't a Roman citizen, you were considered a barbarian. Gauls from the region that now includes France, Germany, and a host of other modern European nations were slaves, as were Middle Easterners or anyone who irritated Rome. 

Attribution*

Does it matter?

In some ways no and in others yes. Netflix really fouled up with its docuseries on Cleopatra, claiming it was accurate when it was not. Why? To lead off, it portrayed Cleopatra as black--not even Egyptian. In truth, there were several Cleopatras of Egypt, but the famed Ptolemaic Cleopatra was Macedonian--a close relative of the Greeks. Egypt historians and archeologists contested the portrayal based on, well, highly documented history about her heritage. Egypt doesn't even claim her as Egyptian because she wasn't. Just deciding that Hannibal was black is lazy from a historical discipline. 

Where does this leave Hannibal?

In terms of Hannibal's heritage, we know who is father was--another great Carthaginian general named Hamilcar Barca. In Carthaginian society, he was an Phoenician aristocrat. Hannibal's mother is at present unknown to history. So let's proceed from what we do know. Hannibal was not white, certainly not western European. Likely he was darker skinned along the tones consistent with the eastern Mediterranean. Again, his blood heritage was Semitic. Additionally, Hannibal's physical appearance is not recorded in any indisputable form--either in word or images. There is no direct evidence. Consequently, it's best to go with what you know and there is one immutable fact: Hannibal was born in Africa, so that makes him fully African. However, if you want to throw a wrench into the mix, much of his young life was spent in Iberia--what is now Spain. So, in another sense, he was Spanish. 

A reason for addressing the race issue is to withdraw the racism element to the Punic Wars. They were about Rome being threatened by another economic power. And Carthage aggressively encroached on Roman frontiers. And Rome's primary defensive strategy was almost always to attack in those situations. 

What's the other issue?

Denzel Washington is, himself, an issue. Not because of race, but because of his age. He is 69 years old, which is a few years older than the age of Hannibal's death. No big deal there. I'm curious, however, to see how the story will be structured. Hannibal was 28 or 29 when he assumed command of Carthage's army. He ravaged Roman Italy until he was almost fifty. After that, he proved an exceptional, reformist civic administrator, bringing Carthage of out Roman economic oppression following the Second Punic War. Will the film be Hannibal looking back on his life as he runs from Rome--hellbent on capturing him and executing him? Does the plot pick up on his life rebuilding Carthage after his defeat at the Battle of Zama? 

This is a film I will see. First, Hannibal is one of my heroes from history. In fact, I am writing a historical fiction novel about him. Naturally that leaves me curious. But Denzel Washington is a fine actor and producer, so I trust that the film will have quality in both story and production value--and no doubt performances. In terms of controversy, obviously it is there, but then, Hollywood always takes creative license with characters and stories from history. There is almost never a pure work product based on history. And the lesson here is simple: Let films like this inspire a desire to learn more, but don't take it as gospel. 

*This image has been created during "DensityDesign Integrated Course Final Synthesis Studio" at  Politecnico di Milano, organized by DensityDesign Research Lab in 2016. Credits goes to Agata Brilli, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons